I declare the motion carried.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to join today's debate on Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy legislation. Before I get started, I want to recognize that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville this afternoon.

We are living in a very uncertain world. As I speak right now, there are missiles being exchanged between Israel and Iran. There is great tension in the Middle East. War continues to ravage Ukraine after three years of brutal Russian onslaught, naked aggression against that democracy that is simply trying to defend its sovereignty. Authoritarian regimes are on the rise. I think it is fair to say that this is probably the most uncertain time in the world, certainly since the Cold War; parallels can be made. It is the most dangerous time since World War II.

In the backdrop of all I just mentioned, and we could spend an entire debate talking about that today, the U.S. administration and the United States, our largest trading partner, regardless of one's partisan affiliation or ideological viewpoint, is seeking to re-establish and to reimagine the relationships it has in the world, with maybe less on multilateralism. It is certainly changing the relationship that the United States has in relation to trade.

We as parliamentarians sit in this place today with tariffs on Canadian products going into the United States that are unjustified and illegal. I am sure all members of the House would agree with that, but they exist. If someone is a steel worker in Hamilton, or if they are in Quebec or in the Soo, there is great uncertainty right now for our Canadian workforce, and particularly for certain industries across the country.

Canada is at a crossroads in terms of what we do next. The Prime Minister and the government were elected in April in part to be able to handle the world that we are living in and the economic uncertainty that has been presented because of all the factors I just laid out, and that brings us to the legislation that is before the House here today.

The Prime Minister has been very clear that we as Canadians can give ourselves so much more than anyone can take away from us as a country. The legislation that is being considered here in the House aims to do just that: It aims to ensure that we can strengthen our Canadian economy, which is under duress from U.S. tariffs and is facing an uncertain world for all the reasons I just laid out.

The bill seeks to do two things. First, it seeks to establish one Canadian economy, not 13. This has been a concept for quite some years, many decades in fact. It is fair to say that some Canadians, and maybe indeed some members of the House, could be cynical about the idea that we can break down the interprovincial trade barriers that cost Canadian GDP in this country approximately $200 billion. Twenty per cent of our national gross domestic product is from services, goods and products being moved within our federation, and for far too long, there have been impediments to that free mobility, the ability for products to move easily between jurisdictions or for the accreditation of professions and services in this country to be recognized among provinces, territories and the federal government.

That is exactly why the government has introduced the bill, which would remove all remaining federal barriers to interprovincial trade. There are very few, but it is incumbent upon all of us, certainly upon the Prime Minister and the government, to show leadership such that the provinces and territories will follow suit. There is certainly political will right now, and Canadians are looking for their elected leaders to break down the barriers and make it easier to do business. Ultimately, this is about growing our Canadian economy.

Over the last 10 years, Canada has had the second-highest overall growth in the G7, but productivity remains an issue. This is something the Prime Minister and the government are serious about tackling, and they want to get started on this domain in earnest. The bill would help do that. The bill would help to break down barriers, to allow small businesses across this country to send their products east-west, as opposed to necessarily looking to other international markets.

I will give an example. I represent the Annapolis Valley, Kings—Hants, in Nova Scotia. There is an emerging wine industry there. It is easier for wine growers in Nova Scotia to send their bottles of beautiful handcrafted products to France than it is to send them to New Brunswick or Ontario. That is just one of the examples. How about the accreditation for surveyors? A surveyor who has accreditation in Ontario would have to re-register in order to work on a federal project in the same city. These are the types of things that we can no longer take for granted and not move on with a sense of urgency and action.

The bill is very clear and is only 25 pages long. The first half is dedicated to interprovincial trade and the mobility of workers in this country. I look forward to a member of Parliament's suggesting that is not a good idea, because I do not think it is what public opinion is, and I certainly do not think it is where public policy should be in the moment of the factors I just laid out to the House. We are going to be moving on it.

The bill would allow for federal regulatory agencies or departments to ensure that where there is comparable, and that is the word used, legislation in a provincial or territorial sense, it would receive the same accreditation as federally. That is important. The legislation lays the foundation. There would be a lot of heavy lifting to ensure that we can exercise that. The legislation is step number one. The sooner we can pass it through the House, the better.

The second aspect of the bill is that we need to get our economy going. We have major projects, and the world needs what Canada has, whether it is in critical minerals, agriculture or the forestry sector. We are blessed to have natural endowments and people with ingenuity, such that people around the world want our products and services.

On major projects, the government is delineating a process to be able to approve major projects more quickly. It is extremely important. Proponents have talked about wanting the ability to move faster on this, and the legislation would allow there to be a major national projects office with the Governor in Council and one minister who would set the conditions for the projects. The cabinet would have the ability, of course, to engage with indigenous partners, provinces and other stakeholders to identify major projects of national concern.

There are five criteria the legislation lays out. I want to cover them for all members of the House and for the public at home so they can understand what would actually constitute a major project in this country. A project would have to strengthen Canada's autonomy, resilience and security. Obviously, it would have to have a clear economic or other benefit to Canada. It would have to have a high likelihood of successful execution in terms of the ability for a project to actually move forward and happen. It would have to advance the interests of indigenous people and contribute to the clean growth in Canada's objectives in relation to climate change. Those are the criteria the government would use.

There are a few things that are extremely important to highlight. I go back to section 35 rights and UNDRIP. There has been some concern outside the House that somehow this legislation would disallow or lessen the constitutional rights indigenous people are afforded in this country. That is not what is happening whatsoever. Any project that would ever find its way onto this list of national projects of concern would have to have involved deep consultation with indigenous people, and one of the actual provisions is that indigenous communities would have to be consulted as part of this.

Nothing from this bill would take away from UNDRIP, which the House passed. Nothing would take away from the ability of indigenous partners to actually benefit.

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Hon. Kody Blois: Mr. Speaker, there is a member from the NDP heckling me here on today's point. What she does not understand is that this represents an absolutely tremendous opportunity for indigenous people in this country. She wants to, I guess, perhaps, limit the economic opportunities available to indigenous people in this country.

We have increased the loan equity in this—

An hon. member: It's about free, prior and informed consent.

Order, please.

I will remind members that there will be a question and comment period. Let us hold our comments until then.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre can wait for her turn in this place, when she can happily ask the question.

My position, and the position of the government, is that we need to be able to move projects of national interest that include indigenous equity in this country. There are indigenous communities that want to move on national projects—

An hon. member: Oh, oh!

Order, please.

The hon. parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg Centre knows her behaviour is inappropriate. It is a constant, direct heckle to the member, and I would ask that, if she cannot contain herself, she be asked to leave the chamber.

I will encourage all members to withhold their comments when they do not have the floor and allow the parliamentary secretary to finish his comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is crucial. We are in an economic crisis. This legislation would move forward with the ability to move on interprovincial trade and the reduction of barriers and allow major national projects to get built.

The government is absolutely committed to advancing indigenous participation in major national projects. Projects would not be listed if there were not adequate consultation or if section 35 rights and UNDRIP were not recognized. Members in the House can argue otherwise, but the government has been very clear and committed.

This legislation is crucial. Let us get it passed because it matters for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister talk quite a bit about trade. One group of products being hit hard right now by tariffs is Canadian seafood.

Lobster, of course, is a very important seafood export of the member's province and of mine as well. Since March, there has been a 25% tariff placed on Canadian seafood by China. It seems as though seafood and the seafood industry are just collateral damage in a trade war the member's government started with China.

Given his high-profile position and how connected he is to the PMO, could the member explain to the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada if he is doing anything about it?

Mr. Speaker, we know the value of the Canadian seafood industry, particularly in our home region of Atlantic Canada. The Prime Minister has been very clear. He had a very constructive conversation with the premier of China. We are going to be regularizing communication with the Chinese government.

However, the member needs to also understand the geopolitics involved because the seafood industry also benefits from exports into the United States. This is an important conversation that the Prime Minister is having at the G7 summit right now. At the end of the day, this is a difficult situation because the U.S. government is also very hawkish on China. Any pathway we move forward on has to be measured against finding a balance with the Canada-U.S. relationship, in a continental sense, while also engaging constructively with the Chinese government to make sure we can continue to move our seafood products and our agriculture products to the world. Our government is committed to making that happen.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Kings—Hants for his speech and his sensitivity on issues affecting indigenous peoples.

He repeated the phrase we have often heard from the Liberals over the past few days, about creating one Canadian economy out of 13. This shows how little consideration was given to the indigenous economy, even in the thought process that led to this election commitment to encroach on provincial jurisdictions. Otherwise, they might have said 14 economies, or maybe even 70. Every nation has its own economic values. Every nation's economic values are different. When I hear them talking about 13 economies, I assume they are referring to the economies of the 10 provinces and three territories.

Has my colleague considered that indigenous people can have their own economy, separate from those of the provinces?

Mr Speaker, this is a new government, but for the members who have been involved over the last 10 years, and the hon. member will hopefully agree, reconciliation was an absolute cornerstone of former prime minister Justin Trudeau's tenure here in his service to Canada.

We have consistently invested in and put in equity for indigenous partners to be involved in major projects. The government has actually increased the equity loan program for indigenous communities to take advantage of and be involved in major projects to help move communities forward and to help bring some communities out of poverty. There are tremendous opportunities out there. We respect the fact that we want indigenous partners across the country to be involved in major nation-building projects. It is the right thing to do. It makes sense economically, and it makes sense for reconciliation.

Mr. Speaker, we are very fortunate in Canada to be blessed with many great financial institutions, and within these institutions are economic departments with great economists leading them.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on the position of our Canadian banks with respect to this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I chair the Prime Minister's economic growth caucus. We had the opportunity to welcome chief economists from the major national banks who were supportive of the type of legislation that allows big projects to get built.

I do not want to speak for the banks in this country, but I would say that this is the type of legislation that is about building economic resilience in the country. It is about making sure big projects happen. It is crucial to make sure that we can drive productivity in this country, and I would encourage all members to support this bill as soon as possible because it matters at a crucial time for the country.

Mr. Speaker, what a privilege it is to rise in this House today on behalf of the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville. It is a pivotal time for our country and for Canadian families alike.

I would like to congratulate all the dads out there for a belated happy Father's Day. They do a great job.

Canadians sent us here with a clear message to make life more affordable, to make our economy work for everyone and to bring this country together stronger, fairer and more united than ever before. That is exactly what our government is doing. When I speak with a young couple in Mississauga trying to buy their first home, a small grocer who wants to expand their business across provincial lines or a retired couple feeling the pressure at the checkout line, one thing is clear: Canadians are looking for action and not slogans. They are getting that action through bold, focused leadership under our Prime Minister and our new government.

This is not just about responding to challenges; it is about seizing the opportunity. Today, all eyes are on Kananaskis, Alberta, as Canada hosts the G7 summit. This is a moment to showcase what makes Canada strong: our resilient middle class, our clean and conventional energy leadership, and our commitment to building a modern, unified economy where no one is left behind. We will stand on the global stage and show the world that Canada is not just keeping up; we are leading.

Here at home, we are moving quickly to deliver real relief for Canadians. Bill C-4, now before this House, delivers on the 2025 campaign promise to cut taxes for the middle class, reducing the lowest tax bracket. That would mean more money in the pockets of 22 million Canadians, up to $840 a year for a two-income family. This relief would start on July 1, so the time to act is now. Families cannot afford delay; they need this support and they need it now.

We are not stopping there. We are tackling the housing crisis with a targeted GST exemption for first-time homebuyers on homes up to $1 million. This would be especially impactful for families in cities like mine of Mississauga. We are helping young Canadians enter the housing market while investing in housing supply to make sure the next generation has the same shot at success.

This past weekend, I had the honour to attend a Luso charities event, which raises vital funds for individuals living with cognitive disabilities. What stood out to me was not just the generosity in that room, which was tremendous, but that there were developers, union leaders and construction workers. People from every corner of the building sector came together for a common purpose.

Do members know what they told me? They said they are optimistic. They believe in the direction our country is going, the way we are headed. They know that by working together with government, community, industry and labour, we can build the homes Canadians need while creating good jobs and delivering inclusive, progressive growth. This is what nation building looks like, and it starts with partnership. This is what it means to build fairness.

Now let me speak about trade, infrastructure and opportunity, because these issues are deeply connected. It was a busy weekend this weekend. I also had the pleasure of attending North America's biggest halal food festival, right in the heart of Mississauga. Fifty thousand people came out, including families, entrepreneurs and business leaders from across our country. Amir Shamsi, the founder, took me around to speak with many of the businesses. Built from the ground up, many of them are newcomer-run, women-led or youth-run. They told me they were ready to grow. They want to move their products across provincial borders and access new markets abroad, but right now they are hitting red tape, different standards, fragmented rules and unnecessary costs. We need to fix that.

That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, is so important. It is vital that we do this. The bill tears down those barriers, creating one unified marketplace across Canada. It helps small and medium-sized businesses, like those at the halal food festival, expand faster, hire more workers and compete globally.

Trade policy is not enough. Nation-building infrastructure is the backbone that supports our economic growth. That is why Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, would help unleash strategic trade and energy corridors, projects that connect our natural resources to markets, our businesses to ports, and our goods to global demand.

We need to modernize Canada's ports, from Halifax to Vancouver, to handle large volumes and higher efficiency. We need to expand rail and highway infrastructure to reduce congestion and speed up delivery. We need to build clean energy corridors that will move electricity across provinces, so that Canadian power can fuel our homes, our factories and our vehicles from coast to coast to coast. This is how we unlock the full potential of the Canadian economy, by investing in the hard infrastructure that makes trade real. This is inclusive, bottom-up trade, where the benefits start with the people on the ground, in places like the great place of Mississauga, and ripple outward across our country.

At our borders, where economic and national security meet, we are acting with Bill C-2. The bill would modernize trade routes, strengthen enforcement and stop the illegal flow of guns and drugs, while speeding up the legal flow of goods. That is good for safety and good for business, and it is essential for a modern economy.

These are just bills, but they are all part of a unified vision, a 2025 Liberal vision, a Liberal plan that Canadians voted for: tax relief for working families; housing access for the next generation; strategic infrastructure to support trade, innovation and energy; a clean economy that grows with people-powered innovation; and a strong Canada united from coast to coast to coast.

It is a plan to build on economic expertise, empowered by the values that Canadians hold dear. We have a Prime Minister with real-world experience in global finance and public service, who held a job as the Governor of the Bank of Canada, as well as the Governor of the Bank of England. This person comes with this experience and brings us all together to a new government, a cabinet team that reflects Canada and delivers for Canadians.

Members have probably heard the announcement that Michael Sabia will be the incoming Clerk of the Privy Council. We have someone, again, who understands both business and public policy and brings those together. He has done it in Quebec. He has done it across our country. That will help. It will help as we build our team Canada.

This Canadian team, working together with all of us, and I say all of us because I speak to all members in the House, our provinces, our territories, our indigenous partners, the private sector, labour and 41 million Canadians, will unlock Canada's full economic potential. That is what real partnership and real leadership look like. What unites all of this is simple. We are focused on people: not partisanship, not posturing, but people.

This is how we restore faith in government, by showing that it can work and that it can deliver for our people. As we show the world in Kananaskis today, Canada is leading, not just with words, but with action. Let us build one economy. Let us support every family. Let us continue building a Canada that works for everyone. Let us build Canada strong.

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the sentiment of the member from Mississauga, I am worried about the details in the legislation before us today.

Can the member confirm if the breakdown of interprovincial trade barriers will allow B.C. wine producers to sell their goods, without any federal rules in place, to any other province or territory? Second, why has forestry been excluded from projects of national interest?

Mr. Speaker, we have great wines right across our country, from B.C. to Ontario, where I am from, the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. I am not naming all the provinces, but we have great wine.

I want to commend the provinces for taking a leadership stance to be able to break down those interprovincial barriers. What I can also say to the member is that, federally, we will eliminate those barriers. The federal government is eliminating those barriers—

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech and I wonder what guarantees we have. We have already talked about carte blanche. What I am talking about is not only the 13 acts and seven regulations that the government would be free to ignore, but also what we need to discuss before proceeding.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. The Liberals are telling us that we must seize this opportunity at all costs. Do they mean an opportunity to govern as they see fit, without consulting anyone?

What guarantees do we have?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for the question and for the opportunity to share this with the member and all members in this House. We were home in our constituencies over the weekend, and I had an opportunity, in my remarks, to talk about many of the people I met on the street, at festivals and at different events. They all said we are in a crisis moment right now. We need urgency. We need to get things done. That is what our government is doing. It is ensuring that we are doing that with efficiency so we can deliver for Canadians. I would think it would be the same in the member's riding, that her constituents are looking for those deliveries and those results to be able to help families in her riding, as this will help families in all of our ridings.

Mr. Speaker, I did want to take this time to cede my speaking time to the member who had been heckling, wanting to speak and ask government members questions, but unfortunately she is not in the room, so I will—

Order.

Hon. members know they cannot make reference to the presence or absence of members in this place. I just ask the member to carry on without that particular piece of commentary.

We have a point of order from the member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for reminding the member that we cannot identify who is here and who is not.

However, I can say that I am here from the NDP and I am happy to take her question.

It does not quite work that way.

The hon. member for London West.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to expand a bit more on the internal trade barriers that Canadians gave us a mandate to address and the importance it would have for ridings like his and ridings like mine in the southwestern corridor.

Can the member take that question?

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the opportunity to talk about these interprovincial barriers. Since our Confederation, since 1867, I think we have had this discussion about interprovincial barriers and how they are stopping our entrepreneurs, stopping our economy and really putting the brakes on our economy from being able to develop.

This is the moment in Canadian history when there is an opportunity for us to take down those barriers and work together with our provinces, territories and indigenous peoples to be able to show Canadians that government can work. I will seize this opportunity. I know we will do it as a House here together, and this will strengthen our democracy.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government looks to the last 10 years on indigenous relations to reinforce its record, but it will not look to the last 10 years for its economic record.

Can the member comment on why the highest-impact item, oil and gas, has not been included in the economic plan?

Mr. Speaker, we are committed to growing our economy, to making our economy the best economy in the G7. I say to the member, that includes clean and conventional energy. It includes agriculture. It is also about manufacturing. This bill speaks to all sectors, and it speaks to all Canadians. It is about our prosperity. It is about our future.

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the member for Saskatoon—University.

This is my first speech in the House, and I would like to thank all the supporters from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

This takes me back to how I got started in politics in the first place. It is ironic, because as a first nations member in Kitimat, where I come from, I got my start on the environment file, meaning that we were trying to repair the damage done to our territory over the last 70 years: damage to the river, damage to the forest and damage to the air. That took up the bulk of our time. At that time, I had to research what an environmental assessment was, what a permit was and what aboriginal rights and title were. This took me years, as a labourer, at a time when the Internet was not readily available to us. We had one computer in our condemned band office, which used to be a residential school. It was hard. It took years to understand this, and nobody in my organization could really explain to me the full extent of what an environmental assessment was. Now, I am back. Over the years, I used to think about all this information in my head being useless, because I thought nobody cared and I could not use it anymore, and then I end up here, talking about the same things I was talking about in 2003, but this time it is flipped.

Canadians should understand that Bill C-5 is in two parts. One is about breaking down provincial boundaries, and I will not be talking about that. I will be talking about the second part, the exemption from environmental assessments in Canada.

The environmental assessments are responsible for LNG Canada, the largest private investment in Canadian history, being built in Kitimat to the highest standards, with transparency and accountability. Everybody understood what was going to happen, because there were federal and provincial authorities involved. More importantly, what strengthened that process was aboriginal rights and title. All first nations from Prince George to Kitimat were part of that process. We all got it; we understood it. There was an emergency of sorts back then, a crisis. Aboriginals were in poverty, and the violence of poverty goes along with that.

Now we have a new crisis, but nobody on the government side is talking about some of the conditions that led to this crisis in the first place. Bill C-69, that extensive bill with all those words in it, actually shut down the building of pipelines. There was also Bill C-48, the ban on tankers coming off the west coast of British Columbia.

The weakened state we are in, and the reason Bill C-5 is on the floor in the first place, is because of tariffs. However, I will go further and say that Canada has lost its place in the geo-energy world, the geopolitical world and the geo-economics world, and it was all self-inflicted. I mean, forget about the tariffs for a second and just think. Without a strong economy, we have a weak country. That is just basic, simple math. It is just common sense, and first nations understand this.

We are now talking about Bill C-5, which would basically exempt major projects from environmental assessments at the federal level, but it would not reduce or eliminate them at the provincial level. It is yet to be seen how much time would be reduced. There is no word on how the federal government will actually replace the consultation and accommodation of aboriginal rights and title, which are protected by section 35 of the Constitution. These processes have been in place, in formation over decades, but now, in one day, we are going to wipe that all out. We are going to say, “No, we don't need an environmental assessment.”

I agree that environmental assessments take a lot of money. They take a lot of time, and they are risky. We could do all the work we want and still not receive an environmental assessment certificate, not to mention what will happen if we have a harmonized environmental assessment with the provinces. There are so many different ways to say yes and no.

Now we are getting that from B.C., which will say no to pipelines, so what we are talking about here is almost a waste of time. If we do by some miracle get to a point where we get a pipeline approval, we are going to end up in court, because there are a tremendous number of gaps proposed by this bill. They were in place when I started in council in 2003, back when we were trying to figure out not only how we make our way in a new world as first nations, but how to strengthen the environmental standards in B.C. and Canada and get B.C. and Canada to live up to the conditions in a permit. That took a lot of work. When first nations say that they strengthened the permitting regulations and environmental assessments and used rights and title to do it, it cost first nations a lot of time, money and political capital, because we were trying to balance economics with the environment and the welfare of our people over the next 50, 100 or 150 years. It was difficult.

In Kitimat Village, we reached a happy medium where everybody benefited, not just first nations. Even our neighbouring first nations benefited, but on the basis of the processes in the province of British Columbia and Canada. We figured it out.

Yes, environmental assessments cost money, an incredible amount of money. For a major project, I recommend to proponents that they better have $50 million of disposable money just to get their certificate, with no guarantee they would get their certificate. Bill C-5 is now saying the government will forego an environmental assessment and give an exemption if it is politically acceptable to it. That would cut down on time and money, but how many groups will be lobbying the government to get on that exemption list? How will the government ensure that the lobbying is done openly, transparently and fairly?

We just went through a debate about contracts issued to a company to the tune of $60 million-plus where processes were in place to ensure there was no fraud or corruption with respect to the contracts being issued. We still have not gotten that resolved. What are we going to do when a $30-billion project comes down the pipe, or a $40-billion project? None of this makes any sense to me, except that there will be no environmental assessment for a major project unless, the way I see it, we find ways to cut corners. Where are we going to cut corners? We are already going to do it with the environmental assessment, but surely we are not going to cut corners with aboriginals on aboriginal rights and title, consultation and accommodation.

There are a lot of first nations that understand this process, but what is number one to the first nations in my area is to address the environment first. That is what we do, and we use our rights and title to do it. We understand there are jobs, money, training and everything associated with a project, but we have to address the environment first. The best way to do that is to engage in an environmental assessment. Usually, aboriginal rights and title run parallel to environmental assessments, both provincially and federally, but if there is no environmental assessment, then what is the process? How will aboriginals ensure that projects are done to the highest standards? We have always bragged that Canada has the highest environmental standards in the world. How do we ensure this with Bill C-5 going forward?

There are many questions here, but the Liberal government just proposed closure, meaning we will not get to debate this bill in full. It was tabled last week. I have never come across a bill this extensive and we only have a week to debate it. Not everybody is going to get up and get a chance to talk on behalf of their riding. Canada has to hold the government accountable. It has to know what is happening with Bill C-5 and the future for the next five, 10 or 20 years, because exemptions are going to be a big issue.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his maiden speech, but I want to remind him that not that long ago, the member and the Conservative caucus actually voted in favour of having the legislation go through in a timely fashion, by Friday. It is important for him to note this, and it was done for all the right reasons. We just came out of an election where there were substantial debates and concerns, and the ideas and principles of this legislation are a reflection of what Canadians are expecting the government and the official opposition to do. I appreciate that the Conservatives voted for this particular process.

Recognizing the importance of sustainable economic development is indeed a very serious issue that is on the minds of all legislators as they push forward with this legislation. Could the member provide his thoughts with regard to why he believes it should ultimately be passed, because—

The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Mr. Speaker, this is basically federal Liberal legislation, and we all understand there is a crisis.

I will speak on my own behalf. I voted for it because I believe in the economy and I believe in a strong country, but I need to see more details. I have to go back to my riding and explain why there will be exemptions coming to environmental assessments. I have to explain why there will be no environmental assessments by the federal government but there will be for provincial governments. I have to explain somehow that first nations, which have a right to carry out their own environmental assessments, may or may not be heard. We still have more questions on this.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Conservative colleague a question.

Since I became a member of this House, I have often seen the Conservatives get all worked up about Liberal corruption and collusion scandals, whether real or imagined. I will not hide the fact that I do not necessarily have the highest regard for the work ethic of the government and the Liberal Party. However, proposed section 21 in Bill C‑5 allows any major national project to be exempt from any law in Canada.

Is my colleague not concerned that the government could circumvent crime and ethics laws to save its own skin?

Mr. Speaker, first nations, under the Indian Act, are forced to understand good governance, and that includes transparency and accountability. In fact, under the funding agreements, if there is a deficit in first nations territory, they get punished. If there is a surplus, under the Indian Act they get punished. When we are trying to understand self-governance and trying to understand self-determination, transparency and accountability always rise to the top.

We talk about scandals here. I have been here a month and I have not seen transparency and accountability in any of the questions we have asked the Liberal government. I agree with my colleague. Where is this going to end up?

Mr. Speaker, I articulated a concern earlier today, because it appears that the legislation is playing fast and loose with the charter. Specifically, we know the legislation proposes that projects of national importance are effectively a foregone conclusion. We also know that the Supreme Court has been very clear time and time again about the duty to consult indigenous peoples. That duty specifically requires good faith.

How can we have good faith when the government comes to the table with a project that is already a foregone conclusion? I am hoping the member can speak to that and about whether he believes the bill will meet constitutional scrutiny.

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I know my colleague has already questioned consultation and accommodation duties. In terms of this bill, either the Liberal government understands the case law and ignores it or does not understand the case law to begin with.

Consulting on a bill has a specific definition of process for over 600 first nations. It is not simply a matter of sending an email or sending a letter and hoping for the best. It has to be followed up on. It is an elaborate process that costs money and time. I will be watching for this with my colleagues in the House.

Mr. Speaker, this is a case study on how not to build a nation, how to destroy a country from within. To understand how bad this bill and the government are, we need to understand how we got here if we are ever going to get through this as a country.

Since day one, the Liberal Party of Canada has been trying to reshape Canada into this weird reality. Many Canadians do not recognize this country, a postnational state that does not have an identity. Over the past decade, Canada has had the worst record on economic growth in the G7. For every category, Canada is dead last because of Liberal policies that have weakened our country and made our citizens poorer.

There are countless stats to confirm how far we have fallen. Just look at the over two million people in our country relying on food banks every day just to sustain themselves. This has been caused by Liberal inflation because of terrible policies like printing money, but maybe more importantly, it has also been caused by the laws the Liberals have enacted to ban growth within Canada, such as Bill C-69, the “no more pipelines” bill, and the tanker ban. This has real-world implications; there is real Canadian suffering. I am also thinking of youth, who are facing record unemployment right now. Whole generations have given up on the dream of ever owning a home. The Liberals want a nation of renters. We are a country in decline because of the terrible policies of the government. It is almost as if in every way possible, the Liberals have made us more dependent on the state.

We do not talk enough about natural resources in Canada. We should be a stronger nation because of our foundation built on natural resources, but that will never happen while the Liberals are in power. The “keep it in the ground” gang has kidnapped our once proud country. We used to build in Canada. We used to celebrate new production in Canada, not cap it. Our citizens are hard working. We are a country, or used to be a country, of doers. After a decade of decline, the terrible Liberal antidevelopment laws have killed communities across our country.

As a country, we have spoken endlessly about the north and the importance of protecting and growing our presence in the territories, but because of new Liberal regulations, the north is hurting. This bill would not address that. I have travelled to the north. I have heard first-hand how Bill C-69 has stalled and ultimately killed every new mining project in the territories.

I have been told that in the territories there are two main types of jobs: people can work for the government on the taxpayers' dime or they can work in the mining sector. The government has stalled and changed regulations so that no mines are currently being built in the territories. Soon, there will only be government jobs, and all those mining jobs will be evaporated. Everyone is just going to get on the payroll of the government. That is the strong country the Liberals are building, a country that happily fires its own citizens and ships production and jobs to foreign countries. The Liberals have made our economy more beholden to foreign interests and have made a weaker Canada.

Because of Liberal anti-pipeline policies, we do not have ways to move our product to market. This results in America buying our oil at a discount. The citizens of this country own the resources in the ground, all the resources. No one special group has more say over them. We are the owners, not the corporations and not the government; the citizens are, for our benefit.

However, this once great country, which owns these resources, has a government that wants to keep them in the ground as long as it can. The manager of the resources, the government, has done a lousy job in managing our assets and our inheritance for the next generation. These brilliant Liberals have layered on so much regulation that pipeline companies such as Brookfield invest in pipelines around the world but not here in Canada. It is elbows up against our own people and resources.

We have closed all growth opportunities to export the product that we all own, making it easier for Americans to literally have us over a barrel. We have forced ourselves to sell to the Americans for a discount on every barrel of oil. It is upwards of $15 on every barrel that we just give away because of the crazy policies the Liberals have enacted for our country.

If we add that up with the millions and billions of barrels of oil, there is the money to reinvest in schools, hospitals, highways and true infrastructure. We would have the revenue because our economy is growing. We would have the ability to get our product to market, but not under the Liberals.

The Liberals have a record of selling out our country for what they claim is the environment. We might just stop that for a minute. The whole idea is that we have to keep it all in the ground and stop everything to save the planet, but just on the oil and gas equation, if the whole world would use oil from Canada, our emissions as a planet would go down by 25%. I am not sure whether they are hurting our country more or the environment more with their crazy Liberal policies.

It gets even worse when we talk about LNG. There is not a country in the world that would not want what we have, but we have squandered this opportunity. This is the worst missed opportunity in a generation. I am so embarrassed for our country about what has happened.

When the Liberal government formed government 10 years ago, there were 15 LNG plants lined up for Canada. There was not a single taxpayer dime in these projects; it was all private investment that would have driven our economy for a decade. These projects were billion-dollar projects located in coastal communities desperate for well-paying jobs that would allow families to buy a home, raise some kids and retire in a safe community. Those paycheques would have come from liquefied natural gas plants.

Unfortunately, the Liberals changed the policies, and only one is progressing. We still do not have it up and operational. If we remember the resource that is in the ground, the natural gas, it is owned by all of us. With what we are doing right now, if we are going to sell an ounce of natural gas outside Canada, it goes to our only customer, the United States of America.

America is our sole customer for natural gas. It takes our gas, transports it in the capacity that we do have in pipelines to the States, and it goes to liquefied natural gas plants, some of which are for the same companies that were proposing those plants in Canada. After the Liberals said no, they went to the States.

We send our gas to the States, and the Americans get the profit from liquefying it and selling it around the world. The profit and the jobs go to the Americans because of Liberal policies. This is the country the Liberals have built. All those jobs and opportunities have been lost to America because of Liberal regulation.

After a decade of crazy Liberal policies that have weakened the country, these crackerjacks are proposing to fast-track a limited number of nation-building projects. It is like Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

I hope families are not waiting. If someone is in one of the many families that have their careers tied up in a project that is waiting for approval from the government, this is the Willy Wonka magic golden ticket they are claiming. If they are waiting for that, I hope their project will go ahead. This is the kind of sweepstakes the Liberal government thinks is the best way to build a nation.

We have a country desperate for growth and all the good things that flow from economic activity. The Liberals only want a handful of those opportunities. This is limiting Canada's growth. The Liberals have weakened our country at the worst possible time. The government has had 10 years to improve interprovincial trade, but it has not.

The Liberals have benefited from a divided federation, so no one believes it when the Prime Minister says that the barriers will be coming down by Canada Day. Frustrations with Liberals have never been higher in Saskatchewan, and for good reason. Many families I know work in the uranium sector and do not trust Bill C-5 or what the government is up to.

Nuclear energy and uranium mining has been stalled in our country because of layering of multiple regulations. If we want to build a nation, I have a project for us. It is ready to go. It is the NexGen Rook 1 project. There are 1,300 high-paying jobs in northern Saskatchewan ready to go. It would result in over $10 billion in government revenue.

This is the project. This is one of thousands of projects across Canada that could actually build a nation. I plead with the Liberals to please put Canada first for a change and get this project done. This is just one of the uranium mining projects that are on the go in Canada and northern Saskatchewan.

That is a perfect place to pause as we move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Sudbury has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting when the member talked about natural resources. Certainly, as the MP for Sudbury, the mining capital of Canada and, I would say, the world as well, I know that mining is very important. Critical minerals are of increasing importance as well.

The government invested $3.9 billion in the critical minerals strategy, which the member's party voted against. I would be interested to know whether the member understands the need to support that. I will give one example: The United States is dependent on 80% of nickel from Ontario, essentially Sudbury, for its aerospace and defence work, so the importance of investing in our natural resources, and certainly in critical minerals, with $3.9 billion—

I have to interrupt the member to provide time for a response.

The hon. member for Saskatoon—University has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the member claims $3.9 billion has been put into this project. How many mines have been built? It is zero. I think back to my province of Saskatchewan. BHP has the largest mine that is getting built right now. The only reason that mine is going forward is that it was grandfathered in under old regulations, not under Bill C-69.

This is a failure of the Liberals. They spent billions of dollars on a critical minerals strategy, and potash is one of those minerals, but there are no other mines being proposed and/or being built right now because of the over-regulations that you guys have burdened our industry with.

I would not be proud about your mining history.

Questions go through the Chair.

For questions and comments, the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, something unusual happened, namely that closure was adopted, and the official opposition agreed to have the entire House subjected to closure.

I would like my colleague to comment on the consequences of his vote this morning and the precedent it sets, especially when we are talking about a bill that will give sweeping powers to the Prime Minister's committee, namely the Privy Council, the power to say that just about anything is in the national interest. This will therefore go beyond the jurisdiction of the provinces, indigenous peoples and Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, I share some of my hon. colleague's frustrations. The provinces have been told by Ottawa what to do, what not to do and how to do it, but we have heard from the courts how unconstitutional what the Liberals have done in the last 10 years is—

The hon. member seems to have a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, for a while there was no interpretation. I would just like to see if it is working.

I will speak in English. Is the interpretation working in French?

It is working now. I will give the floor back to the hon. member for Saskatoon—University.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether members caught all that, but Ottawa has messed things up in our provinces and has dictated to the provinces in their jurisdictions. The courts have ruled how unconstitutionally Ottawa has been treating our provinces, and that includes Quebec and Saskatchewan. Now with Bill C-5, if someone is a Liberal insider, they are going to be successful in this country. It is the Liberals' track record, for the last 10 years, that if someone was a Liberal insider, they made cake. For everyone else, it is too bad, and that—

For questions and comments, the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna has the floor.

Mr. Speaker, the previous Liberal member gave a bit of the nickel tour, and I will give the copper tour, or a penny tour.

In my old riding of Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, there were two copper pit mines, one just outside Princeton and one outside Logan Lake, and both companies at the time wanted to expand their operations, but they were actually concerned that they would be subject to Bill C-69. It would add a whole lengthy process that, in the day, would not be better than the provincial one and would just cost them, as Bill C-69 measures things that are not contemplated provincially or are calculated in a different sense, making nothing but work and paper for accountants.

Does the member think that the government has really lost an opportunity, instead of going back to the drawing board and redrawing Bill C-69, getting rid of the unconstitutional elements and red tape? Is that not where their focus should be?

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague is right that Bill C-5 is not a fix; it is how to get Liberal insiders on a select list of projects that will get done. This is ethically challenging, and it opens up a litany of opportunities in which insiders are going to get rich, once again, because of the Liberal government. It will pick winners and losers, versus letting the market decide.

To the example that you raised on Bill C-69 and on ways to save it, we do need regulations and we need protections, but what we do not need is what we currently have, with which nothing is getting done. We are in a crisis in Canada, and the Liberals do not have the answers, because they are the ones who actually messed up this country so badly.

I just remind all the members to address their comments through the Chair.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.

Mr. Speaker, let me say off the top that I will be splitting my time with a great new member, the hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

Since this is my first time speaking for a substantive length of time since the election, please allow me to thank the hard-working, industrious people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North for the honour of being their voice and their servant and for carrying their hopes and dreams to this place. While I have lived and worked in other places in North America in my career, I have always felt and known that the communities of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North are my true home, and home is where the heart is. It is the honour of my lifetime to serve these great communities. I want to thank my campaign team, including Simon, Mona, Jordan, Wendy, Jim and hundreds of volunteers. Above all, I thank my wife, Tracy, without whose love and support I certainly would not be here today. I will now go to the matter at hand.

Canadians are struggling, not because we lack talent and not because we lack resources, but because we are too often being held back by red tape, gatekeeping and a government that over-promises and under-delivers. Nowhere is that clearer than when it comes to getting big projects built or trying to move goods and services and workers across provincial lines in our own country. These barriers do not cost us only time and money; they also cost us opportunities, investments and jobs.

That is why Bill C-5, an act to enact the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act and the building Canada act, is such a missed opportunity. It claims to deliver free trade and fast-tracked projects, but the reality is it would deliver bureaucratic theatre; it is a showpiece of announcements without the substance to back them up.

Let us start with part 1 of the bill, the free trade and labour mobility in Canada act. The premise is good. Canadians should be able to work and trade freely across the country without unnecessary federal barriers. However, the scope of this section is minuscule. It would affect a tiny subset of goods and services. In fact, during government briefings on the bill, one of the few examples offered was clean energy labels on washing machines, which is certainly underwhelming.

There is no comprehensive list of affected items. There is no plan to deal with the biggest trade barriers, no mechanism to assess progress and no timeline. There is no effort to create a blue seal licensing standard that would allow skilled immigrants and professionals, such as doctors, nurses and engineers, to work in the province next door, despite meeting rigorous national standards. Therefore, this was a missed chance to unlock the talent that is already here in this country.

There is also a missed opportunity to incentivize the provinces to remove their own barriers. The most effective governments are those that find ways to align incentives, not those that just issue guidance and hope for the best. That is why Conservatives have proposed a real solution to offer financial bonuses to provinces for every interprovincial trade barrier they eliminate. It would be a win-win-win. It would boost GDP and increase federal revenues. In fact, economists estimate that removing interprovincial trade barriers could add as much as $200 billion to Canada's economy; yet, instead of seizing that opportunity, Bill C-5 takes a baby step. It scratches the surface when Canadians are looking for bold, transformative reform.

Part 2 of the bill is the building Canada act. The most revealing part of this section is not what it proposes but what it omits. It is an admission by the government that its own laws are the problem and that Liberal legislation, such as Bill C-69, the shipping ban and the energy cap, are laws that have tied our economies in a knot. The Liberals know it, investors know it and workers know it. The bill is the Liberals' workaround, a way to admit failure without fixing the root of the problem. The bill tries to create selective escape hatches for a few lucky projects, but it would keep all the red tape in place. It is a patchwork solution for a broken process.

There is no clarity on which projects would qualify, no defined criteria for what would constitute the national interest and no certainty for investors or communities. It is just another layer of bureaucracy and a lot of discretion left in the hands of ministers. Even with the promise of a two-year timeline, provincial vetoes would remain, and the sunset clause would limit the use of these powers to just five years. How is anyone supposed to plan long term?

Here is the most frustrating part. The Liberals are essentially picking and choosing which projects get exemptions, without fixing the laws that block everything else. If they can fast-track one project, why not all deserving projects? Why not fix the system for everyone, not just the politically connected few? Canadians do not want political favours. They want fairness, they want clarity, and they want to build. That is why Conservatives support real reform, one-and-done approvals, a national energy corridor and shovel-ready zones with clear timelines and firm standards. We believe all worthy projects should be able to proceed, not just the ones that win favour from this week's minister. We have the people and the expertise in Canada. We have the resources. What we need is a government that believes in Canada's potential again.

Let us talk about the broader context. Canada has posted the worst growth in the G7 over the last decade, yet we have all the national resources in the world. We have everything the world wants. At the same time, we are selling our energy to the United States at a discount. Our farmers, miners and builders are being boxed in by the federal government. Global demand for energy, food and raw materials is surging. Other countries are stepping up, but Canada is standing still. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said it well: “internal trade barriers still act like a [self-imposed] 21% tariff.” What did we get from this bill? We got a couple of washing machines.

Meanwhile, U.S. tariffs have turned a simmering problem into a full-blown crisis. Canadian workers and exporters are caught in the middle, and the government has no answer. Dan Kelly of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business summed it up when he said the spirit of this bill may be positive, but in practice, it will not move the needle.

We could be leading the world. Again, we have everything the world wants. Eighteen LNG projects, as has been mentioned, sat on Trudeau's desk awaiting approval. Germany, Japan and other countries came looking for our LNG. We could have been helping get the world off coal and replacing European dependence on Russian natural gas, yet the Liberals turned the German chancellor away and said there was no business case. Will this be more of the same?

This is not just about economics; it is about sovereignty, national unity and building a future where Canada leads in so many sectors as we are capable of doing. It is about restoring the Canadian promise to generations that feel abandoned by their government. Conservatives will not stand in the way of the minor progress of this bill, but we will not pretend the bill would deliver what it claims. We will work in committee this week to strengthen it, seek real amendments and keep pushing for solutions that go beyond optics and tackle the root cause of stagnation. Canadians do not want more red tape and more process. They want paycheques, they want purpose, they want projects to get built, and they want to be proud of this country and what it can do, once again.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, the legislation we have before us is a reflection of the April 28 decision. It is something Canadians want and expect from not only the government but the opposition. I am very grateful that the Conservative Party today voted in favour of us being able to get this legislation through so we can present it to Canadians before July 1.

Having said that, the Prime Minister and the administration have been very proactive, meeting with premiers of all different political stripes. It sends a powerful message. In fact, we said we would work with a team Canada approach in delivering for Canadians in a major election platform, a platform that was, at least in part, accepted by the Conservative Party.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the team Canada approach that has been led by the Prime Minister of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, Canada has everything the world wants. I cited 18 LNG projects that languished on the desk of the former prime minister. We have the ability to unleash great potential, and this bill does not go far enough. The new old government, or the old new government, has had 10 years to address that, and what we get is a very tiny, baby-step piece of legislation just before the summer recess to create the illusion that something is being done. Conservatives support some progress, but my goodness, we have everything the world wants, we should be booming in this country, and we need to unleash that potential.

Mr. Speaker, I see that my Conservative colleagues are not very satisfied with Bill C‑5. It is an understatement to say that we are not either, because we are more than dissatisfied. We are deeply concerned about what is in this bill.

Given that the Conservatives themselves are dissatisfied, why are they in favour of fast-tracking a bill that will make major changes to the way projects are approved?

More importantly, will we have the time to do things properly, since closure will not allow us to carry out a serious study?

Mr. Speaker, my Bloc colleague sits with me on the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. We will be studying the bill this week around the clock, clause by clause, and I am sure we will have many points of agreement and discussion around that, to make some improvements to what we view as a bill that does move the needle just slightly, as referred to in the comments from the business leaders, but certainly not enough.

There is so much more potential that needs to be unleashed in Canada, and this bill is just going to take that tiny baby step toward it. We certainly support that little bit of progress, but we want to see a whole lot more, and I do look forward to working with the—

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who sits on the transport committee with me, for his speech today. The government likes to talk about one national economy, yet we see in the second half of Bill C-5, and the Prime Minister has said publicly, that provincial premiers are going to have a veto. That means 13 different economies by its very nature.

Could the member expound upon whether he finds there is a contradiction here in what the government says and what it legislates?

Mr. Speaker, we certainly see that the movement towards free trade within Canada by Canada Day is, obviously, not going to happen. The bill just moves an inch along, and it is woefully inadequate. As my colleague pointed out, the vetoes that are contained within it are an impediment to that one Canadian economy.

It just harkens back to the original Canada free trade agreement that the old Liberal Party government, apparently now the new government, had under Trudeau. There were hundreds of pages of exceptions. I do not know what is new in this particular piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador relies heavily on the tourism industry. In fact, it is one of the biggest employers in rural Newfoundland, since the collapse of the fishery. Even this industry has a massive trade barrier: the Marine Atlantic ferry. This ferry acts as a bottleneck, holding back growth despite demand. Bill C-5 talks about nation-building projects, yet our current infrastructure and transportation system needs immediate attention.

During tourism season, these vessels are fully booked, with no room for tourist vehicles and RVs. Although most hotels, resorts and restaurants have more capacity, tourists are not able to get across the gulf into Newfoundland. Our tourism industry has grown tremendously in the last decade, yet Marine Atlantic services have hardly grown. Hotel rooms and historical tours go unused because there is no ferry space available to bring travellers in.

During this last campaign, when the Liberals knew they were going to lose more seats, like mine, they made a last-minute election promise to reduce the ferry rates. Now, we can all agree that passenger rates should be free, but the Liberals promised to reduce rates before Canada Day. We are only two weeks away, and the prices still have not changed. People are booking ferry rides now for July and August, but what will happen? Will they get reimbursed? People do not know what is going to happen. This uncertainty undermines planning for families and is creating uncertainty in our tourism industry.

If the Liberals want to reduce trade barriers, they need to take a good look at how the island of Newfoundland does trade. Fifty percent of our province's cargo shipments are through private cargo companies, yet only Marine Atlantic cargo is subsidized. How can private industry compete when shipping costs are so high?

If the government wants to continue its freeze on transport trucks, will this create even more demand on Marine Atlantic services, eliminating even more possible ventures for passenger opportunity and tourism opportunity? Why does the Liberal government not make up its mind and either subsidize all cargo shipping into the province or none of it? Perhaps that would shift the cargo market, resulting in fewer transport trucks on our ferries, allowing for more passengers and more tourists to boost our economy, which would reduce the interprovincial trade barriers on our tourism industry.

Speaking of ferries, I see in the national news that the Province of British Columbia has awarded its ferry construction contracts to Chinese companies, for the ferries to be built in China, a country we are currently having a trade war with. This decision undermines Canada's industrial backbone. The Prime Minister says he is elbows up for Canada, and he brags about allegedly successful meetings with premiers across the country, yet he cannot seem to convince B.C. to build these ferries here in Canada.

Talk without action means loss of jobs for our country, which may soon have a stockpile of unused steel and skyrocketing unemployment. I am curious to know how many other boatbuilding jobs will be going overseas. B.C. alone says it expects to create 18 new ferries in the next 15 years. Where will these boats be built? Will these powerful paycheques retreat overseas?

I understand that the Liberal government has all its consultants as busy as a Bay Street banker rewriting the rules of capitalism before breakfast, but perhaps the Transport Canada minister and her team could investigate this fiasco to determine what needs to be done for these boats to be built here in Canada. In my district alone, there are two shipyards and two fabrication sites sitting idle. Perhaps the Liberal government could work with private industry to make real investment here in Atlantic Canada to conduct minor upgrades to build these ferries, future ferries and other Canadian ships. These idle sites represent a ready-for-business infrastructure and workforce.

Being an island and a landmass in the most eastern part of the country holds other connection difficulties as well. Newfoundland and Labrador is one of the largest providers of hydroelectricity in the country, with potential to have massive expansion, yet we struggle to get our power to market. Will the government use Bill C-5 to remove the interprovincial trade barriers on our green energy by ensuring that its proposed energy corridor would be connected to our province? That way, we could sell our electricity at fair market value without the extortion of other provinces. Removing these barriers would both boost our Newfoundland economy and meet national energy needs.

Considering the government just hired Hydro-Québec's Michael Sabia, I and every other Newfoundlander and Labradorian have major doubts that this energy corridor would allow our Labrador electricity to market without other provinces taking the icing off the top.

We want someone from the government on that side of the House to take a stand and assure us that this energy corridor will remove all provincial barriers and gatekeepers, so Newfoundland and Labrador can get our energy to market without having to give away our lunch money. We want a commitment to clarity, timelines and fair play conditions so that all provincial governments and private energy investors can prepare for this enormous opportunity.

Let us get down to the core of Bill C-5. The biggest component of the bill would allow the Liberal government to select a few projects it deems as nation-building projects. What is interesting about this is that even the Liberals now understand that their anti-building laws, anti-mining laws and anti-energy laws are too much for private industry to navigate on their own. They created so much red tape that they now need this new bill to roll out the red carpet for their VIP-selected projects.

Perhaps my colleagues will be filled with the highest level of integrity and would never plan to violate any ethical policies or choose companies that would benefit them, but I can assure the members, absolute power corrupts absolutely. By giving themselves the power to make or break any project in Canada with a slight stroke of a pen, it is only a matter of time before we see more shameful stories such as GC Strategies, which was given nearly 100 million taxpayer dollars in contracts to do nothing, or the green slush fund, where over six years Sustainable Development Technology Canada approved approximately 900 million taxpayer dollars in funding that was inappropriately directed to projects that violated guidelines, often given to companies that Liberal MPs or their friends owned. We must learn from the past. Those warnings cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, if the Liberals realize that a handful of supposed nation-building projects would help our economy, why can they not understand that hundreds of these projects across our nation would put this country back on track, where it needs to be, and take care of our seniors, pave our roads and fix our health care? We would not even need Bill C-5 if the government were to repeal Bill C-69, which blocks pipelines projects through this country, and Bill C-48, which cripples our offshore industry. We would not need Bill C-5 if the Liberals had never implemented the production and emission caps that are choking our economy or if we had never had the last Liberal decade because we would have had one of the strongest economies in the world. We have everything in this country to succeed, except for good leadership.

I grew up in a Canada where an average kid from Clarenville could have endless possibilities. He could run for student council and one day be the MP, or he could start pumping gas and dream of one day owning that gas station and be an oil tycoon, just like “Old Man” Irving. Bill C-5 would kill this dream and many more just like it.

Bill C-5 tells young Canadians that, if they want to build something, they have to be pals with the people at the top. It is a perfect fantasy for Canadian oligarchs. That is not the Canadian dream. It is a nightmare of privilege. It replaces merit with connection, potential with politics and small-town hope with big-city gatekeeping. We need a Canada where every company and every person has equal opportunity, and we need a smaller government to make way for bigger citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I am a new member of the House, and I was very impressed this morning with the vote and the support in the House for our bill. To me, it speaks about action. Action is so important, and I think, certainly, that is what Canadians are looking for.

I was impressed with my colleague's comments. I have been following as well, at a distance, the matter of tolls on ferries, and I appreciate his frustration. I understand that some of the reasons behind the difficulty in resolving some of these matters is due to the fact that there are many ferry companies that are involved and there are some complexities involved.

I was wondering if my colleague could comment on how he might play a role more locally, in his riding, in resolving this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we have one transport company from mainland Canada to Newfoundland and Labrador for passengers. It is Marine Atlantic. We do have cargo ships and other companies as well, but we have one for passengers and tourists. That is the one I am speaking of today. There are a lot of things we can do locally, but Marine Atlantic is a national, Crown corporation, and it starts right here in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

For several weeks now, we have heard the Conservatives criticize the Liberals on ArriveCAN and GC Strategies and question their ethics. This legislation will really give the Liberals superpowers, allowing them to shield their developer friends from the law. Proposed section 21 will allow them to exempt developers from ethics laws, the Canada Labour Code, and so on.

I wonder why, in this context, the Conservatives supported the closure motion that will allow the Liberals to pass this bill without any serious consideration and without members being able to improve it.

Mr. Speaker, desperate times call for desperate measures. Conservatives knocked on the doors of Canadians, and we understand, with the cost of living, they are really worried if they are going to make the next rent.

We understand that some projects in this country are better than no projects. We have stated over and over that these are baby steps in the right direction, but we need to repeal Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 to unleash Canada's potential, so we can improve this country and give the citizens at home a better quality of life.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Terra Nova—The Peninsulas gave an inspiring speech.

The member mentioned the importance of ferries. His riding and mine are at opposite ends of the country, but they have this in common: We are coastal provinces, where ferries for passengers and traffic are very important. However, in British Columbia, we are not even building our own ferries. I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of one strong Canadian economy to be able to at least build our own ships.

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with my colleague.

We are in a crisis right now. We are in a tariff war with multiple countries across the world. However, we may have a stockpile of unused steel, and this would be a great opportunity to put our workforce to work, whether they were to be built in B.C., Newfoundland or anywhere in Canada. It is a great opportunity, but it does not seem like the government is interested in seizing that opportunity to create work here at home.

Uqaqtittiji, I congratulate the member on his election.

I wonder if the member has heard from the Nunatsiavut Government in his province and whether it has shared its concerns with Bill C-5 and how the bill would infringe on its rights.

Mr. Speaker, I have not heard directly on Bill C-5, but throughout the campaign, when I talked to aboriginal people in our province, everyone had the same concern. They want to be consulted before things go through. They do not want the federal government to have a veto card to push anything through.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

I just want to give my thanks to my neighbours in Beaches—East York. Trust is everything in our democracy. It means a lot to be given their trust, and I am going to work hard to earn it.

Against the economic threat posed by President Trump, Canadian politicians have rightly renewed calls to build up our country. I am one of them. It is a nation-building moment. A strong and resilient domestic economy is a priority. Of course, it should be. To that end, we should remove unreasonable barriers to economic growth. If a rule does not contribute to the public interest, or if its negative cost is disproportionate to any positive contribution, we should do away with it, but that does not mean we should pursue economic growth no matter the cost.

Depending on the project, there may be competing public interest considerations, including biodiversity and habitat protection, indigenous rights, climate change, long-term cost-effectiveness, democratic participation and more. However, under the guise of responding to the threat posed by Trump, we are sacrificing other important values. We are not thinking about unintended consequences, and we are actively undermining our parliamentary democracy. Consider the case of two bills, Doug Ford's Bill 5 and the federal government's Bill C-5.

Ontario's Bill 5 became law last week. It not only gutted habitat protection, just to start, but also enacted the Special Economic Zones Act to give the government, unnecessarily and disproportionately, unchecked power. Effectively, the government can now designate special economic zones and then exempt or alter any provincial or municipal law that would apply to a company or project within those zones. Ecojustice rightly called it a threat to democracy. Worse, the Ford government shut down democratic debate, curtailed committee scrutiny, and jammed the bill through the legislature. Now, that may be par for the course for Doug Ford. That is fair.

However, Ecojustice has also called the federal government's bill, Bill C-5, a threat to democracy, and no Liberal government should welcome that accusation. Worse, with Bill C-5, in a Bill 5 déjà vu, the federal government is proposing to shut down democratic debate, curtail committee scrutiny and jam the bill through the legislature. It would all actually make Harper blush. Liberals would rightly scream if a federal Conservative government attempted the same.

While they share similar goals, and yes, they suffer some similar defects, the federal Bill C-5 is not exactly the same as Ford's. Part 1 of our legislation, the free trade and labour mobility act, usefully aims to harmonize federal and provincial rules where reasonably possible. The idea is simple, to avoid duplicative regulation of goods, services and labour where federal and provincial rules are comparable. Yes, of course, the devil is in the details of assessing what comparable means, but it is a welcome move.

The problems with Bill C-5 lie in part 2, the building Canada act. Its purpose is clear, to get national interest projects built more quickly. This is so far, so good. The proposed law would streamline authorizations at the same time that it emphasizes the importance of climate action and indigenous rights. This is a huge and positive distinction from Ford's Bill 5. At no point does Ford's bill even mention climate change or the need to consult with affected indigenous rights holders. However, despite its promise, the proposed building Canada act has two major faults. First, it would give the government unfettered discretion in designating national interest projects, and second, similar to Ford's Bill 5, it would give the government unchecked power to exclude or alter any law that would otherwise apply to such a project.

The Minister of Natural Resources set the stage for Bill C-5 in a May 23 speech calling for a renewed spirit of building by reframing the national conversation. There has been no more asking about why we should build. The real question is, how do we get it done? In my view, it would be wise of the government to take its own advice when it comes to Bill C-5. Rather than defending the “why”, or the idea of the bill, we should refocus our attention on the “how”, or how we pass it. In other words, we should improve the bill and respect democratic participation as we do so.

First, we should welcome greater parliamentary and civil society scrutiny. The government's proposed guillotine motion seeks to limit parliamentary debate at every stage of the bill. More concerning, it will jam all expert and public testimony, and all committee scrutiny, into less than two days. What is this for? Members can consider that Parliament is not currently scheduled to sit between June 20 and September 15. We are rushing legislation through Parliament under the auspices of an urgent threat, but we are not willing to put Parliament to work for what, an additional week, to get things right?

The debate on amendments does not need to be rushed. We could easily extend committee hearings by an additional week, provide resources for the committee to sit every day and engage in a more thoughtful process to hear from experts, improve the bill and pass it through the House by Canada Day.

Beyond improving the process, we should also fix the substance of Bill C-5.

First, clause 5 currently would give the government unfettered discretion to designate national interest projects. There is a list of specified factors at subclause 5(6) that the government may consider, including the interests of indigenous people, as well as clean growth and meeting Canada's subjects with respect to climate change. That is all good. However, with the bill as currently drafted, the government would not need to consider any or all of these factors. We can and should change that. We could either mandate that the government consider these public interest factors, or we could require that national interest projects not be inconsistent with them. Simply, Parliament should be more prescriptive than including factors as mere examples.

Second, clause 22 would empower the government to exclude the operation of any law from a project it has deemed to be in the national interest. Combined with the unfettered power to designate such projects, it would effectively do away with Parliament. There is an easy fix: Remove this unnecessary and disproportionate power from the law. The government can always amend regulations as it sees fit, but it should return to this place, the House of Commons, if a law duly passed by this place is to be excluded or altered in any given situation. If there is a rationale for excluding the operation of a particular law, of course we can move quickly as needed.

There are no doubt other possibilities to improve the law. It may well make more sense to limit the unique process to the next three years instead of the next five. We could require that ministerial advice with respect to conditional authorizations be made public. Expert testimony would likely offer other good ideas if we care to listen.

For my part, I will support Bill C-5 here at second reading to send it to committee, because it is time to build, and good projects should be built more quickly. I will vote against the government motion that would hinder the work of the parliamentary committee tasked with public hearings and improving the legislation. I will vote for the bill at further stages only if it is amended substantively.

We do not make laws in this place for one government or for one prime minister; the laws we pass are binding on all future governments of all political stripes. Even a time-limited law like the one that is before us would establish a precedent. If passed as it is, Bill C-5 would be a dangerous precedent that would enable Conservatives to gut environmental protections when they are in power next. President Trump is a threat to our economy; of that, there is no doubt. My constituents overwhelmingly voted for a government and leader ready to act, to respond to Trump forcefully and to build up our country thoughtfully, but not at the expense of our democracy, environmental protections and indigenous rights.

Mr. Speaker, my first question to the hon. member is whether I can post his speech on my Facebook page. I would appreciate that.

In all seriousness, the bill lacks a lot of things and is susceptible to many things, that is, court challenges as a result of the lack of indigenous consultation within the bill, and other parts as well. I wonder whether the hon. member can speak to the risks as they relate potential court challenges related to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, of course, the member can post anything I say to his Facebook page. His constituents, I think, would welcome most things I say at least.

The second thing is that we should not take the duty to consult lightly. Of course, legislation cannot oust the duty to consult. That is a constitutional obligation, and the courts have well defined it. There are some good things in the bill, and I support its object, of course. However, on that particular question, the bill would require consultation with affected indigenous rights holders, not only in designating a project but also its implementation.

Mr. Speaker, I just realized the scope of the message.

Members might have noticed that my colleague used the words of my predecessor last Friday. The only thing, if I understand correctly, is that he voted for it.

What about the next steps? What does my colleague intend to do so that democracy can do its job and that this bill is not pushed through with closure?

Mr. Speaker, I thought I was clear on this; I apologize if I was not. The vote we just had was to shorten the debate on the government motion; it was not a vote on the motion itself.

I said I would support the bill at second reading. Of course, I agree with the object of building this country up. Everyone should agree with the object of the bill. I will support getting it to committee. I will support it only if there are substantive amendments at committee, and I am not going to support hindering the work of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation contains principles that, I ultimately believe, were given to every member of Parliament coming out of the election, a mandate to take down barriers and build a stronger, healthier one economy. A good example of that is interprovincial trade, and I am wondering whether the member could provide his thoughts on the importance of interprovincial trade and taking down those barriers.

Mr. Speaker, it is in all of our interests to remove barriers to interprovincial trade. The challenge, obviously, is that it would come at a particular cost to one province in one case and a different province in another case. The federal government has to show leadership, and through the bill, in part 1 in particular, we are showing that leadership, and that leadership should be welcome.

Mr. Speaker, words cannot express my deep respect for the hon. member for Beaches—East York for his courage. I would like to point out to him that the Canadian Cancer Society believes that part 1 also needs to be amended and that it could lead to a race to the bottom without exemptions for health and environmental standards as interprovincial barriers are brought down. Again, Greens favour bringing down interprovincial barriers and building a one Canada economy, but not with a bulldozer pushing it through Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the devil is in the details of what “comparable” means. I agree that we do not want a race to the bottom, but we definitely want a removal of interprovincial trade barriers that are unreasonable and that hinder our economy.

Mr. Speaker, the member and I worked together on the former ethics committee. Would he agree that a closure motion is more of an autocratic type action, or is it democratic? I would like to clarify with the Liberal government whether it is autocratic in nature, or democratic, with this action?

Mr. Speaker, I might ask the member the same, because he voted for the motion. With respect to a closure motion on a government motion, we should not spend unlimited debate on a government motion. I think we are fairly and fully debating the government motion. The vote that matters is on the government motion, and the member will see how I vote.